PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) AND NICOLAS SACEDA, RESPONDENTS.

Assailed
in this petition for certiorari
is the resolution promulgated on November
16, 1987 by the NLRC in POEA CASE NO. (L) 84-07-660 affirming the decision of
the POEA Officer-In-Charge, Honesto Cueva, who granted
private respondent Nicolas Saceda’s claims for stand-by
pay and withheld allotments.  The
following undisputed facts were lifted from the Solicitor General’s Comment on
the petition:

“1.     In the first week of December, 1981,
petitioner Philippine National Construction Corporation (hereinafter called
PNCC), a duly registered construction company, through its predecessor-in-interest
Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP), hired
private respondent Nicolas L. Saceda as HT Driver I
(Actg. Scraper Operator) for its Suyallil North Port
road project in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 
Respondent Saceda was hired at an hourly rate
of US$1.55 for 24 months contract period to be effective upon his departure. 
He left the Philippines on
January 8, 1982.

“2.     On January 8, 1984, private respondent Saceda
completed his two (2) years overseas contract. 
However, it was extended by petitioner
up to January 27, 1984.

“3.     On February 9, 1984, private respondent was dispatched to Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia for immediate repatriation to the Philippines.  He
was first booked for departure on February 21, 1984.

“4.     However private respondent refused to depart because he wanted
to await the final disposition of the complaint he filed against petitioner
PNCC for payment of his completion bonus, unused vacation/sick leave and unpaid
wages from December 1, 1983
up to January 27, 1984.  The decision of the Saudi labor authorities
which was favorable to private respondent was rendered on March 24, 1984.  Private respondent agreed to be repatriated
on March 27, 1984,
after petitioner PNCC paid him the award granted by the Saudi labor
authorities.

“5.     Upon his arrival in the Philippines,
private respondent Saceda found out that the
allotment representing 70% of his salary for the period November 16, 1983 to January
15, 1984, amounting to
$408.00 was not paid by petitioner PNCC to his designated beneficiary in the Philippines. 
Despite repeated demands, petitioner failed to pay said claim without
justifiable reason.

“6.     On August 16, 1984, private respondent Saceda
filed a complaint with the Workers Adjudication and Assistance Office,
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), docketed as POEA Case No. L-84-07-660, for
non-payment of withheld salary/allotment and stand-by pay corresponding to the
period January 27, 1984
to March 27, 1984 in
the sum of US$744.00.  He claimed that he
was not repatriated soon upon the
termination of his contract but was made to wait and remain idle for two
months.” (pp. 27-29, Rollo.)

On April 30, 1986,
Honesto Cueva,
officer-in-charge of the POEA, rendered a decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, this
Office hereby ordered herein respondent Philippine National Construction
Corporation (PNCC) to pay herein complainant Nicolas Saceda
the peso equivalent based on the prevailing exchange rate at the time of actual
payment of the following amounts:

“1.     US$206.40 representing stand-by pay for the
period covered from January 27, 1984 to February 21, 1984;

“2.     US$408.00 representing the withheld
allotment within ten (10) calendar days upon receipt of this DECISION.” (Annex A, pp. 8, 13, Rollo.)

As mentioned earlier, the
NLRC affirmed the above decision of the POEA in toto.

In its petition for certiorari, the petitioner questions
only the award of stand-by pay to Saceda for being
allegedly devoid of legal basis.

The petition has no merit.

The legal basis of the NLRC’s award of
“stand-by” pay to Saceda during the period
that he was made to wait while his employer worked for the ticketing, booking
and processing of his exit visa and travel documents for his return trip to the
Philippines, is
the employment contract.  Under
the contract, the PNCC was obliged to notify the employee “two months
before the end of the term of the contract” whether his contract would be
extended or he would be repatriated. 
Within that two-month period, the employer, which keeps in its
possession the employee’s passport and travel documents for the duration of his
employment, is supposed to work for the ticketing and processing of the
employee’s travel documents so that he may immediately return to the
Philippines upon the expiration of his contract.

Petitioner alleged that it takes at least one month to have
travel papers processed by the Saudi Arabian authorities.  Clearly, the two-month period stipulated in
the contract is more than enough for the purpose.  Hence, petitioner alone is to blame for its
failure to obtain Saceda’s travel papers within the
two-month period before his contract came to an end.  Since it was through its fault that Saceda’s departure was delayed, it must give him stand-by
pay.

The stand-by compensation which the employer is required to pay
the employee while the latter waits for his travel papers, is actually the
damages caused to him by the employer’s delay in getting his travel papers
ready.  As correctly pointed out by the
Solicitor General in his Comment, the basis of the employer’s liability for
such damages is Article 1170 of the Civil Code which provides:

“Art. 1170.  Those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in
any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.”

As it was the petitioners obligation to get Saceda’s
travel documents ready for his repatriation to the Philippines upon the
termination of his overseas contract, the petitioner must answer in damages for
the delay in Saceda’s departure which compelled him
to “stand-by,” idle and jobless in a foreign land, while waiting for
his employer to hand him his ticket and travel papers for his trip home.  The measure of those damages is the income he
could have earned if he were repatriated promptly in order that he could work
again in his own country.

The fact that Saceda refused to depart
on February 21, 1984 because he wanted to
wait for the outcome of the complaint which he filed against petitioner
for the payment of his completion bonus, unused vacation/sick leaves, and
unpaid wages from December 1, 1983 up to January 27, 1984 (when his extended
contract of employment expired) does not shift to him the blame for his delayed
departure, for, as it turned out, his suit was justified.  The decision promulgated by the Saudi Labor
Authorities on March 24, 1984 upheld his
claims.

Since Saceda was compelled to litigate
by reason of the petitioner’s unjust refusal to pay his valid and demandable
claims, the petitioner is answerable for the damages he suffered by having to
stay on to see his case through.  The
petitioner should, therefore, pay him stand-by compensation from January 28,
1984 up to March 27, 1984 when he was repatriated after the petitioner paid the
judgment in his favor.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed.  As above modified, We
affirm the decision of the NLRC in POEA Case No. (L) 84-07-660, with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J., on leave.